Surely the Lord God does nothing, without ...

[pelagius]

This week I am teaching the gospel doctrine lesson, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet," to the 12-13 year olds. I thought about spending some time on the classic Mormon proof text in Amos 3:7. I doubt I am going to talk about the scripture much for my lesson but I can't help but think we underuse this scripture generally by using it rather globally and not talking about the entire pericope: 3:1-8.

1 Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt:

2 You only have I known
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your iniquities.

The context in this pericope is about Israel's covenant with God. Specifically, it is a judgment oracle. The verse certainly emphasizes the exclusiveness of the relationship and I think this speaks to the intimacy of the relationship. The antithetical parallelism is powerful as it contrasts the Lord's grace (favor) with his justice and seems to suggest that they two cannot be separated. The covenant brings favor and faithfulness from the Lord but it also involves covenantal accountability.

Verse 3-5 seems to look back at verse 2 and push us to the climax in verses 7-8.

3 Do two walk together
unless they have made an appointment?

4 Does a lion roar in the forest,
when it has no prey?
Does a young lion cry out from its den,
if it has caught nothing?

5 Does a bird fall into a snare on the earth,
when there is no trap for it?
Does a snare spring up from the ground,
when it has taken nothing?

The oracle present of a list of inseperables. Things that necessarily go together. Interesting, most of the list exudes power (The lion does not cry out if it hasn't taken prey.). Except for the first which seems quite unremarkable. Thus these verses amplify verse 2. The Lord's favor and justice cannot be separated you cannot have one without the other. It belongs with this list of inseperables. Additionally, we are introduced to another inseperable:

6 Is a trumpet blown in a city,
and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster befall a city,
unless the Lord has done it?

Here the oracle turns darker still. Breaking the covenant will lead to disaster and that disaster is coming and caused by the Lord. It is part of the list of inseperables. But then then the oracle changes a bit:

7 Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.

8 The lion has roared;
who will not fear?

The Lord God has spoken;
who can but prophesy?

The parallelism between the lion roaring and the Lord speaking is striking. Is this how Amos feels in the prescense of God given the situation? Is this how Amos experiences revelation? Amos repeatedly uses this imagery (1:2):

And he said:
The Lord roars from Zion,
and utters his voice from Jerusalem;
the pastures of the shepherds wither,
and the top of Carmel dries up.

Such different imagery than something like the still small voice. I can't help but agree with Douglas Stuart: "The true prophet cannot ignore Jehovah's voice any more than sensible people can ignore the roar of a loan."

Also, does verse 8 give some hope? The lion has roared but the list of inseperables stated that this occurs after the taking of the prey. The capture of the prey (desctruction of Israel) hasn't happened yet. Israel has a chance to return to covenantal faithfulness because prophets get a chance to hear the lion roaring before it takes its prey.

The context of Amos 3:7 involves the Lord's covenants with Israel and emphasizes in my view the importance of prophets in helping Israel remain faithful or really return to its covenant. The context doesn't really suggest we tend to use this scripture incorrectly (maybe a bit too widely in terms of its implications) but I can't help but think it is somehow more powerful placed within its context (even if it is done in a rather pedestrian way by me).

[UtahDan]

Interesting thoughts. The thought I always have when I read this scripture is: what does the Lord actually do. Obviously it doesn't mean what it literally says. A God has way more going on that he can report to a mortal or a mortal can understand. So what is meant by do? Do on earth? Is every prayer that is answered or miracle done reported to the prophet? That doesn't seem possible either.

In the context of the verses, which talks about God's plans to punish Israel as well as the portents of such punishment, isn't the most logical reading of that verse that "do" refers to what all of the preceding verses refer to which is the punishment of Israel or God's people? When you look at it that way, it makes more sense, at least to me. God will warn the prophet if he is planning a chastening (Noah about the flood, Lehi about the destruction of Jerusalem, Samuel the Lamanite about the coming of the Lord). Not "God tells the prophets everything he does" which doesn't really make any sense.

[Goatnapper'96]

This week I am teaching the gospel doctrine lesson, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet," to the 12-13 year olds. I thought about spending some time on the classic Mormon proof text in Amos 3:7. I doubt I am going to talk about the scripture much for my lesson but I can't help but think we underuse this scripture generally by using it rather globally and not talking about the entire pericope: 3:1-8.



The context in this pericope is about Israel's covenant with God. Specifically, it is a judgment oracle. The verse certainly emphasizes the exclusiveness of the relationship and I think this speaks to the intimacy of the relationship. The antithetical parallelism is powerful as it contrasts the Lord's grace (favor) with his justice and seems to suggest that they two cannot be separated. The covenant brings favor and faithfulness from the Lord but it also involves covenantal accountability.

Verse 3-5 seems to look back at verse 2 and push us to the climax in verses 7-8.


The oracle present of a list of inseperables. Things that necessarily go together. Interesting, most of the list exudes power (The lion does not cry out if it hasn't taken prey.). Except for the first which seems quite unremarkable. Thus these verses amplify verse 2. The Lord's favor and justice cannot be separated you cannot have one without the other. It belongs with this list of inseperables. Additionally, we are introduced to another inseperable:


Here the oracle turns darker still. Breaking the covenant will lead to disaster and that disaster is coming and caused by the Lord. It is part of the list of inseperables. But then then the oracle changes a bit:


The parallelism between the lion roaring and the Lord speaking is striking. Is this how Amos feels in the prescense of God given the situation? Is this how Amos experiences revelation? Amos repeatedly uses this imagery (1:2):


Such different imagery than something like the still small voice. I can't help but agree with Douglas Stuart: "The true prophet cannot ignore Jehovah's voice any more than sensible people can ignore the roar of a loan."

Also, does verse 8 give some hope? The lion has roared but the list of inseperables stated that this occurs after the taking of the prey. The capture of the prey (desctruction of Israel) hasn't happened yet. Israel has a chance to return to covenantal faithfulness because prophets get a chance to hear the lion roaring before it takes its prey.

The context of Amos 3:7 involves the Lord's covenants with Israel and emphasizes in my view the importance of prophets in helping Israel remain faithful or really return to its covenant. The context doesn't really suggest we tend to use this scripture incorrectly (maybe a bit too widely in terms of its implications) but I can't help but think it is somehow more powerful placed within its context (even if it is done in a rather pedestrian way by me).

I know when I was 13 there were few things I looked forward more to than "pericopes" and "antithetical parrallelism."

But 24 years later I really enjoyed. Ahhhhhh youth is wasted on the young!

[pelagius]

In the context of the verses, which talks about God's plans to punish Israel as well as the portents of such punishment, isn't the most logical reading of that verse that "do" refers to what all of the preceding verses refer to which is the punishment of Israel or God's people? When you look at it that way, it makes more sense, at least to me. God will warn the prophet if he is planning a chastening (Noah about the flood, Lehi about the destruction of Jerusalem, Samuel the Lamanite about the coming of the Lord). Not "God tells the prophets everything he does" which doesn't really make any sense.

Yes, In my view "do" is clearly the proposed punishment of Israel because of their covenantal infidelity ... So, I agree. That is why I included language like "maybe a bit too widely in terms of its implications" when referring to the way we usually talk about the verse.

One can think of generalizing it but it does move one decidedly beyond the text

[UtahDan]

Yes, In my view "do" is clearly the proposed punishment of Israel because of their covenantal infidelity ... So, I agree. That is why I included language like "maybe a bit too widely in terms of its implications" when referring to the way we usually talk about the verse.

One can think of generalizing it but it does move one decidedly beyond the text

Yes. I figured you had already arrived there, just sharing the thoughts you provoked from me. I do love the lion imagery here.

[pelagius]

Yes. I figured you had already arrived there, just sharing the thoughts you provoked from me. I do love the lion imagery here.

Sorry about that ... I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.

[SeattleUte]

Changed the title. That's chickenshit.

[pelagius]

Changed the title. That's chickenshit.

LOL ... you're priceless.

[Rosebud]

LOL ... you're priceless.

You going to let him belittle you SU?

[SeattleUte]

You going to let him belittle you SU?

None of us plebes get to change our titles. Typical. I bet Pelagius practices his general conference intonation in front of the mirror.

[pelagius]

I bet Pelagius practices his general conference intonation in front of the mirror.

You try to be biting but it still comes out so charming ... not PAC level charming but not too far off.

It is too bad really ... I don't have what it takes to be a proper foil for you but I think you're going to enjoy having the board apologist back posting.

[YOhio]

None of us plebes get to change our titles. Typical. I bet Pelagius practices his general conference intonation in front of the mirror.

Anytime you want your title changed, just drop me a PM and it's done.

Between flexing and practicing his Mr. Olympia acceptance speech, there is no way pelagius can fit in enough mirror time to practice his GA intonation.

[pelagius]

Anytime you want your title changed, just drop me a PM and it's done.

Between flexing and practicing his Mr. Olympia acceptance speech, there is no way pelagius can fit in enough mirror time to practice his GA intonation.

That's awesome that you know that the Olympia competition is this weekend. We should do a prediction contest.

[Solon]

This week I am teaching the gospel doctrine lesson, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet," to the 12-13 year olds. I thought about spending some time on the classic Mormon proof text in Amos 3:7. I doubt I am going to talk about the scripture much for my lesson but I can't help but think we underuse this scripture generally by using it rather globally and not talking about the entire pericope: 3:1-8.



The context in this pericope is about Israel's covenant with God. Specifically, it is a judgment oracle. The verse certainly emphasizes the exclusiveness of the relationship and I think this speaks to the intimacy of the relationship. The antithetical parallelism is powerful as it contrasts the Lord's grace (favor) with his justice and seems to suggest that they two cannot be separated. The covenant brings favor and faithfulness from the Lord but it also involves covenantal accountability.

Verse 3-5 seems to look back at verse 2 and push us to the climax in verses 7-8.


The oracle present of a list of inseperables. Things that necessarily go together. Interesting, most of the list exudes power (The lion does not cry out if it hasn't taken prey.). Except for the first which seems quite unremarkable. Thus these verses amplify verse 2. The Lord's favor and justice cannot be separated you cannot have one without the other. It belongs with this list of inseperables. Additionally, we are introduced to another inseperable:


Here the oracle turns darker still. Breaking the covenant will lead to disaster and that disaster is coming and caused by the Lord. It is part of the list of inseperables. But then then the oracle changes a bit:


The parallelism between the lion roaring and the Lord speaking is striking. Is this how Amos feels in the prescense of God given the situation? Is this how Amos experiences revelation? Amos repeatedly uses this imagery (1:2):


Such different imagery than something like the still small voice. I can't help but agree with Douglas Stuart: "The true prophet cannot ignore Jehovah's voice any more than sensible people can ignore the roar of a loan."

Also, does verse 8 give some hope? The lion has roared but the list of inseperables stated that this occurs after the taking of the prey. The capture of the prey (desctruction of Israel) hasn't happened yet. Israel has a chance to return to covenantal faithfulness because prophets get a chance to hear the lion roaring before it takes its prey.

The context of Amos 3:7 involves the Lord's covenants with Israel and emphasizes in my view the importance of prophets in helping Israel remain faithful or really return to its covenant. The context doesn't really suggest we tend to use this scripture incorrectly (maybe a bit too widely in terms of its implications) but I can't help but think it is somehow more powerful placed within its context (even if it is done in a rather pedestrian way by me).

This is nice, pelagius. It often strikes me as simultaneously commendable and regrettable that some ward out there has a pelagius teaching 12-13 year-olds. On the one hand, it's got to be pretty cool for the kids, and it shows the standard LDS willingness to serve anywhere. On the other hand, though, it seems like putting Alex Rodriguez in Double-A ball.

The book of Amos is pretty intriguing. It's a condemnation of both the nations of the world, and the northern kingdom. In scholarly opinions, this was written around 750 BC, just a generation before the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. I've also been struck before how we typically use the scripture at 3.7 to justify LDS hierarchy and the teachings of the leaders as being divinely inspired, when Amos himself came from outside of the hierarchy (7.14-7.15). As Amos explains, "I was no prophet, nor was I the son of a prophet, but a herdsman and a fig-grower."

In fact, the established order felt threatened by Amos' words. The priest at Bethel (where Jacob saw the ladder) accused Amos of conspiracy and tried to send him away from the northern kingdom back to the southern (7.10-13).

I suspect that my reputation around here will make this sound like I'm throwing water on the fire more than I want it to. That's my bed and I guess I should lie in it. But I sincerely find this episode interesting - obviously the northern kingdom and its priests were in disfavor with the Lord and so an outsider came in to call them to repentance. But this outsider was not just a political outsider, but an ecclesiastical outsider too, most likely uneducated and certainly not plugged into the social order (assuming, of course, we can believe what Amos says about himself).

Contrast this with the way that we are taught revelation to work today, using Amos 3.7 - that it indeed happens, and that it comes uniquely through the LDS prophets and apostles and authorities - and I think there is some basis for discussion.

(Obviously this isn't something you'd bring up with 12-13 year-olds.)

[UtahDan]

This is nice, pelagius. It often strikes me as simultaneously commendable and regrettable that some ward out there has a pelagius teaching 12-13 year-olds. On the one hand, it's got to be pretty cool for the kids, and it shows the standard LDS willingness to serve anywhere. On the other hand, though, it seems like putting Alex Rodriguez in Double-A ball.

The book of Amos is pretty intriguing. It's a condemnation of both the nations of the world, and the northern kingdom. In scholarly opinions, this was written around 750 BC, just a generation before the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. I've also been struck before how we typically use the scripture at 3.7 to justify LDS hierarchy and the teachings of the leaders as being divinely inspired, when Amos himself came from outside of the hierarchy (7.14-7.15). As Amos explains, "I was no prophet, nor was I the son of a prophet, but a herdsman and a fig-grower."

In fact, the established order felt threatened by Amos' words. The priest at Bethel (where Jacob saw the ladder) accused Amos of conspiracy and tried to send him away from the northern kingdom back to the southern (7.10-13).

I suspect that my reputation around here will make this sound like I'm throwing water on the fire more than I want it to. That's my bed and I guess I should lie in it. But I sincerely find this episode interesting - obviously the northern kingdom and its priests were in disfavor with the Lord and so an outsider came in to call them to repentance. But this outsider was not just a political outsider, but an ecclesiastical outsider too, most likely uneducated and certainly not plugged into the social order (assuming, of course, we can believe what Amos says about himself).

Contrast this with the way that we are taught revelation to work today, using Amos 3.7 - that it indeed happens, and that it comes uniquely through the LDS prophets and apostles and authorities - and I think there is some basis for discussion.

(Obviously this isn't something you'd bring up with 12-13 year-olds.)

I'm not sure I agree as respects pelagius. While there may be something in the culture that makes people believe that bishoprics/presidencies, etc. are the most important callings, I think the most important calling in the church is teacher (this is intuitive, right?) and that the most impact can be had with young people. This is not meant to flatter pelagius, but I actually think they have put him in a position to do maximum damage good.

Also, you have highlighted a very interesting irony and the reason that I don't really buy the idea that the church can "never be led astray." What would ever make any of us think that God's church could be led astray and that and outsider could be called to remind it of its covenants and call it to repentance? Only the fact that exactly this has happened over, and over and over and over in almost every book of scripture we have in every dispensation. I know that we believe that the gospel will never be taken from the earth again, but that isn't really what we are talking about.

That doesn't mean I think that has happened. Far from it. But I think it is crazy in LDS theology to say that it can't. Certainly not in light of the BOM.